If everything has energy Which thing can be an energy source?

If we look at everything in this world,galaxy,universe, We find that every physical object is capable of doing work... If we apply the proper "INPUT" force within a distance in this humongous universe work can be done.

Re: If everything has energy... Which "thing" can be an energy source?

It's difficult to give a totally watertight answer but it would be true to say that Useful Energy or USeful Work can be obtained from a situation where there is an excess of energy somewhere compared with the energy somewhere else. It works on relative differences between states of energy. Temperature or Velocity differences can be exploited ( Kinetic Energies ) or differences in Potential Energy, like the chemical battery, a coiled spring or the position in some force field (electric or gravitation, for instance).

It's difficult to give a totally watertight answer but it would be true to say that Useful Energy or USeful Work can be obtained from a situation where there is an excess of energy somewhere compared with the energy somewhere else. It works on relative differences between states of energy. Temperature or Velocity differences can be exploited ( Kinetic Energies ) or differences in Potential Energy, like the chemical battery, a coiled spring or the position in some force field (electric or gravitation, for instance).

Good point, if we have a source that is capable of producing an excess of force can that be considered an energy source? It should? Since its increase the potential of Work anda change in a system kinetic energy if applied.

Re: If everything has energy... Which "thing" can be an energy source?

Gas for example is a viable source of energy, when placed in a chamber of no heat. It stays with no excess of energy, yet when heat is applied excessively that gas can become a major source of work. When I think about it, some causes require the presence of a force to all work to happen or for us to harness energy we require a source that a force acted/ or acts on it. Really were all living off the energy of the big bang in theory, because that enormous explosion was the main kick for everything...

Re: If everything has energy... Which "thing" can be an energy source?

You should avoid confusing Energy and Force here and the concept of "no heat" is also dodgy. Where could you have 'no heat', except at absolute zero?
You have the choice of two avenues to follow this, I think. You can either be strictly rigorous in all your terms and stick to accepted models or you can enjoy arm waving. Either would be good fun but the latter wouldn't really have a place in this area of PF, I feel.

You should avoid confusing Energy and Force here and the concept of "no heat" is also dodgy. Where could you have 'no heat', except at absolute zero?
You have the choice of two avenues to follow this, I think. You can either be strictly rigorous in all your terms and stick to accepted models or you can enjoy arm waving. Either would be good fun but the latter wouldn't really have a place in this area of PF, I feel.

Im not confusing energy and force, fact is on is a scalar and the other is a vector, One is the whole (Energy), and one is a factor of the "whole"(Force). I don't mix them but I like to strip energy into a simpler image. If you have a family that consists of many individuals, and you'd like to research that family you'd prefer to strip each member a part and study them fairly don't you agree? In my analogy I showed how an energy source is useless by its own, only when a certain "factor" is applied to it, it changes the WHOLE outcome.

There are some constraints on that, for example with a heat engine, we would need a temperature differential to exist between the object and the engine. For a fusion reaction it would need to be exothermic, and so forth.

*Has anyone ever listed all possible types of 'engine' mechanism?*

I dont mean petrol v diesel, i mean based on fundamental processes like heat transfer or gravitational potential.

Im not confusing energy and force, fact is on is a scalar and the other is a vector, One is the whole (Energy), and one is a factor of the "whole"(Force). I don't mix them but I like to strip energy into a simpler image. If you have a family that consists of many individuals, and you'd like to research that family you'd prefer to strip each member a part and study them fairly don't you agree? In my analogy I showed how an energy source is useless by its own, only when a certain "factor" is applied to it, it changes the WHOLE outcome.

Please do not ignore the PF Rules that you had agreed to, especially our policy on speculative discussions.

You appear to be using a lot of familiar physics terminology, but in ways in which they are vaguely defined. Energy is "the whole"? Force is "a factor"?

Please note that in classical physics, these terms are extremely well defined, and you are not allowed to simply make things up as you go along. I strongly suggest you look up those definitions first before proceeding to make your own definitions.

Please do not ignore the PF Rules that you had agreed to, especially our policy on speculative discussions.

You appear to be using a lot of familiar physics terminology, but in ways in which they are vaguely defined. Energy is "the whole"? Force is "a factor"?

Please note that in classical physics, these terms are extremely well defined, and you are not allowed to simply make things up as you go along. I strongly suggest you look up those definitions first before proceeding to make your own definitions.

Zz.

Um, I failed in describing my analogy. I apologize for that, however, I do hope you all know that I'm not confusing both and I clearly know the definitions of both and their property very clearly.
I try to relate them to each other. However, I'd stay away from that point because it could lead me to violate the rules here...